I remember how I first learnt about a non-apology apology. It was while watching the 1976 film 'All The President's Men'. In the movie, the Washington Post journalist Bernstein explains to his colleague why politicians often say things like: 'I apologise if my statement has caused any offence'. It's like mocking the person for being so feeble-minded and being offended in the first place.
It's quite a handy tool if you want to be a politician.

Fakeroversy!!!! Give me a break! This 30 year old college student is an activist asking for others to pay for her birth control!!! Where is Obama's concerned phone call to Palin who was called a C#nt and Tw@t by Bill Maher, who also donated a million dollars to Obama?!?

Limbaugh's apology is diminished by the fact that he still insists that Fluke's sole argument is that she wants someone else to pay for her to have sex. This shows a basic lack of understanding or unwillingness to understand basic female healthcare. He also attempts to pit all of America against Fluke by claiming that she wants "taxpayers" to pay for her contraceptives. This was a case about someone wanting their employer to cover certain medical expenses and dragging all taxpayers into it is just another way to bully someone with less of a public forum to respond.

Yes, he used vulgar words to personally attack Fluke, but he also used a specious argument to cast her in a negative light, for which he has not apologized. Note also that he apologized for "THE insulting word choice," not "MY insulting word choice." A minor quibble perhaps, but an indication of a lack of personal ownership of his choice of words.

Let's also add in the fact that completing her studies and reproductive control is by far more useful and less expensive to society than the alternative in the bluntest terms. The consequences also effect the male partner as well.

Also note that Mr Limbaugh doesn't attack coverage for ED medications, of which the majority use seems put to recreational purposes for otherwise healthy males and is most definitely subsidized sexual activity.

People weren't outraged because of Rush's position on the merits. They were outraged because of his vulgar, ad hominem attack while expressing his position. He needn't apologize for the general position to apologize for his attack on the individual, and it's probably reasonable for him to clarify what he is apolgizing for if the position is important to him.

I think they are one and the same. It's his position "on the merits" that led to his calling her a slut. Let's not forget that his argument was that "we" are paying for her to have sex, so "we" should be able also get sexual pleasure from the payment for services. He never apologized for that ridiculous line of logic.

I think they are one and the same. It's his position "on the merits" that led to his calling her a slut. Let's not forget that his argument was that "we" are paying for her to have sex, so "we" should be able also get sexual pleasure from the payment for services. He never apologized for that ridiculous line of logic.

What a foolish article. One can as Rush did, apologize for how you said something, while keeping your feeling on the situation too. He said he is sorry that he insulted Ms. Fluke, but still feels the political situation is wrong. Just because he personally wronged someone, doesn't mean he has to change his entire political view. I think the OP is just trying to over-complicate things and make people think otherwise. If people still feel its not enough that they are either:
A) Just don't like the guy, and would never accept any apology.
B) Way too sensative in which case, Rush should have used that quote about "I'm sorry people are so thin-skinned".

By the way, while Rush's words may have been over the line, Ms. Fluke is hardly a innocent. She is a highly intellgent 3rd yr law student at a good law school, has been in positions of leadership in women's organization and generally exaggerated about the cost most women's birth control which can be hard at Target for around $10/month. She does not represent all women. None of this is the real point of disagreement about the contraceptive, but don't assume she is some helpless person Rush beat down.

Hardly an innocent? What an absurd remark. She showed up to give testimony and for that was called a slut and a prostitute by a major public figure. So any person who wants to testify can now be called names? Innocence has nothing to do with that. She's not a convicted criminal. I read in your remarks a lack of compassion but also a political viewpoint that can't express itself without implicit condemnation of others.

What?!? I had no health insurance for three years, and had used birth control to regulate menstrual cramps. I searched far and wide to find birth control, and never found anything close to what I needed for less than roughly $70 per month. Even right now, my insurance co-pay for a basic contraceptive is $30 per month. What Target do you shop at? Or, can I assume you only pay $10 per month because your employer's insurance plan covers this cost?

His apology is utterly insincere, so much so it is insulting. He did very clearly intend a personal attack on Ms. Fluke. He called her a prostitute and asked for her to post sex tapes online. How much more personal can you get, really?

One real non-apology is the lie in the 2nd paragraph. It was his choice to make her contraception appearance an issue. It was his choice to talk about it not once but for 3 straight days. He then denies that by saying, "I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress." Again, he could have ignored it. Or he could have said Congress was stupid in discussing it. He then says, "nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level." It only reached that level because he made it a big deal with his stupid remarks. This isn't an apology as much as its an attempt to blame others for his own actions. He apologizes only for his choice of words, not his meaning, and completely ignores his own decision to make this into an issue.

But what can you expect from a drug addict? He has a long history of making bad decisions and then blaming his actions on others. That's what drug addicts do.

Don't group innocent drug addicts into the same class as that loud-mouthed bastard. We are victims of historical circumstance (heroin, nicotine, caffeine, etc. are subjectively acceptable), not eejits blathering on about all and sundry on the public airwaves.

Rush Limbaugh could have achieved his objective with a much simpler apology like:

"My choice of words was not the best, and in my attempt to disapprove of her course of action, my words attacked her person instead of her action. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices."

There you go, his disapproval is clearly expressed in a non-insulting way.

It would be too nuanced for his sound-bite echo chamber core base. They would read it as a real apology and feel themselves betrayed - What? Apologize to a Liberal and worse to a Woman? What can be more un-American and unpatriotic than apologize to enemies of the state that have betrayed the country and sent it to ruin and damnation.

"I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke."
Otherwise known as a lie.
The only reason he is sorry is because he's losing sponsors. Even they can't evade his abject vileness any longer.
Perhaps the country is finally waking up to the notion of how corrosive this civil illiberty is.
His pathetic attempt to elevate his S.O.P deservedly fails.

So because he didnt change his position his apology is invalid? He clearly apologized for calling her a slut. Would you have him cancel his radio show and go off air? Its a right wing political radio talk show. Of course hes going to talk about the issue,

It is important the views he spouts are seen by America to be intolerant and extreme and this can be done by limiting the careers of anyone in the media that choose to spout this sort or 'trash' through scandals like this. Slowly, hopefully this will have the effect of limiting the audience of talk shows like this to self confessed exremists and stopping ordinary Americans from thinking its 'ok' to hold views in line with what he is saying.

"I don't approve of her actions but I should not have attacked her person." would have sufficed, I think. Instead he tried to tap dance around the issue and ended up tripping over his own two utterly inept feet.

My point was, Its a radio show. Should he have aired a 15-second broadcast the content of which was apology? Or just randomly slipped the apology in amongst sports statistics? Its a political radio show. He's going to discuss his side of the issue. That doesn't necessarily mean his apology is insincere. People make mistakes and should be forgiven when they apologize. I think Johnson's problem with the apology probably has more to do with its issuer rather than with its substance.

You mean views like that all religions have an inalienable right not to be forced to commit acts contrary to their most sacred convictions? If that is what you are talking about, then count me beyond extreme.

You misunderstand. While I may not support gay marriage, I also don't oppose it. I do oppose the government telling individuals who they may marry based on gender, but to go so far as to say I am excited about men being wed to other men I would not. I just don't care, anymore than I care what other religions do. Its none of my business and none of the government's business either.